Print

[Evil Eye]

I am an objectivist that appreciates art.

What does that make me?

An apostate.

I can accept that, but I would not define myself that way.

[Spanky]

How would you define yourself?

[Nacreous]

"Overall, the experience eerily replicates that of devouring a family-size bag of Cheetos in a single sitting.^1"

^{You know, if you are going to try and slam a writer, you really are required to be able to at least write.}

lol, exactly, what was GQ thinking by publishing this?

Ahhh!  At last, the Randroids emerge!

Don't be shy, dudes.  Let 'er rip!  Tell us how great Her Holiness was.

[Ah.hell]

I am an objectivist that appreciates art.

What does that make me?

An apostate.

She appreciated art, she just thought there was an objective criteria for doing so.  As long as you can justify why you appreciate a piece of art with objective criteria, you're ok.

[Evil Eye]

How would you define yourself?

A human male who does not believe in any god that enjoys nature immensely, cannot tolerate people who don't understand something no matter how many times or ways you explain it, and loves all art and music. Appreciates every waking moment, and loves sleep just as much.

I live for the day and the moment. But I also require evidence.

I'll try to give an example of the way I think.

I can look at art and love it for what it is.... regardless of the medium or the subject. AND I can appreciate the artist's meaning if I know it.

If I don't, I do not place meaning on it, and I get annoyed when others who do not know put their own meaning on it. (Those people standing in front of a painting and telling me what the painting means, when in reality... the painter just liked horse fields and could only afford crayons.)

[Evil Eye]

Furthermore....

I really do get annoyed with bands that place meanings on their own songs AFTER they are asked.

[Lukas]

I am an objectivist that appreciates art.

What does that make me?

An apostate.

She appreciated art, she just thought there was an objective criteria for doing so.  As long as you can justify why you appreciate a piece of art with objective criteria, you're ok.

Apart from all the libertarian ideology, this idea about art is completely silly. Why should art be appreciated with objective criteria, and did she ever try to formalize this pseudo-rational theory of art appreciation? (I heard that she hated Beethoven and loved Rachmaninoff, but I never heard about her "objective criteria" to justify this judgment.)

[Evil Eye]

One last one.

This drives me insane...

You take the time to get/do something nice for someone, and then they reject it by saying, "You just really don't know me at all!"

Why didn't they just fucking TELL me what they wanted and we'd BOTH be happy?

I can't read minds.

[jaypee]

One last one.

This drives me insane...

You take the time to get something nice for someone, and then they reject it by saying, "You just really don't know me at all!"

Why didn't they just fucking TELL me what they wanted and we'd BOTH be happy?

I can't read minds.

hah! my wife did this for Valentine's/Anniversary (they fall on roughly the same day).. I got her some really unique tea which I thought she'd like, and I had spent hours browsing through etsy to find it, and she was like "why'd you get me tea?"

and yet she's aghast that my side of the family asks each other what we want for Christmas and then we go out and buy the things people ask for.

[Ah.hell]

I am an objectivist that appreciates art.

What does that make me?

An apostate.

She appreciated art, she just thought there was an objective criteria for doing so.  As long as you can justify why you appreciate a piece of art with objective criteria, you're ok.

Apart from all the libertarian ideology, this idea about art is completely silly. Why should art be appreciated with objective criteria, and did she ever try to formalize this pseudo-rational theory of art appreciation? (I heard that she hated Beethoven and loved Rachmaninoff, but I never heard about her "objective criteria" to justify this judgment.)

IMHO, this was her silliest notion except maybe her opposition to charity.

[Spanky]

I can't read minds.

I can actually explain this one.

"If you really loved me, you would be able to read my mind, and know what I want, with out me having to tell you."

[Spanky]

Don't feel bad, that one drives every sane man crazy.

The answer is simple.  Ask her girlfriends what she really wants.

[Spanky]

Let me give you a tip on a clue to men's characters: the man who damns money has obtained it dishonorably; the man who respects it has earned it.

Run for your life from any man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper's bell of an approaching looter. So long as men live together on earth and need means to deal with one another--their only substitute, if they abandon money, is the muzzle of a gun.

Atlas Shrugged

[jaypee]

Let me give you a tip on a clue to men's characters: the man who damns money has obtained it dishonorably; the man who respects it has earned it.

Run for your life from any man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper's bell of an approaching looter. So long as men live together on earth and need means to deal with one another--their only substitute, if they abandon money, is the muzzle of a gun.

Atlas Shrugged

thanks for post whoring, but I didn't need some overwhelmingly self-interested author to tell me that money and capitalism is the only viable system. That's not really what we're talking about here, what we're talking about is how obnoxious the cult followers of one very very mediocre novelist are.

[Spanky]

Man I forgot all about how crazy that shit is.  Considering the recent worldwide financial disaster, it almost seems prophetic, in retrospect.

Whenever destroyers appear among men, they start by destroying money, for money is men's protection and the base of a moral existence. Destroyers seize gold and leave to its owners a counterfeit pile of paper. This kills all objective standards and delivers men into the arbitrary power of an arbitrary setter of values. Gold was an objective value, an equivalent of wealth produced. Paper is a mortgage on wealth that does not exist, backed by a gun aimed at those who are expected to produce it. Paper is a check drawn by legal looters upon an account which is not theirs: upon the virtue of the victims. Watch for the day when it bounces, marked, 'Account overdrawn.'